@DashEquals definitely against. if i say something in public, it doesn't mean i want it to be there forever. if i say something now, only taking my current life situation into account, it doesn't mean that the same thing will be safe for me to say later. it could be life threatening sometime else.
if i go to a café and talk to a friend (it's an action, not passive existence, and it's done in public), it doesn't mean i consent to be recorded by someone else. there even are laws against it.
@DashEquals i'm no politician, i don't have any moral obligations to not say specific things or contact foreign spies. you aren't doing anything good by archiving my toots. it should at least be possible to opt out, although in my opinion for it to not be a moral crime it should be opt in.
yes, it's technically possible to save everything what one says. but with archive team it's a little different. you not only save data, you also make it easily accessible for anyone to find.
@DashEquals so if e. g. my government passes a retroactively applicable law that i broke before it was there by saying certain things, you'll help them to find me. can it be considered good? it's not very likely to happen, of course, but for some people it does. i don't think there can be an excuse for this.
it's only an example, there're a real lot of possible situations like this.
@DashEquals besides, imo you're just wasting disk space. signal to noise ratio is very low for social networks. i can't imagine how can you help anyone by saving data from here. but i easily imagine how you can harm people.
@leip4Ier huge amounts of the early history of TV was lost forever because people underestimated a) its future value as part of the historical record, and b) rapid advances in info storage tech. Imagine the wealth of context available to future historians if every private email could be stored in encrypted form and released 100 years after the writer's death. Archiving *public* conversations on the web is not only ethical but a service to humanity.
@strypey oh, and you just haven't ever been blamed (and good if only blamed) for your ancestors' sins. otherwise you wouldn't say that.
privacy of the dead doesn't matter, huh? what about, say, genetic diseases that are always inherited and may be stigmatized? is it ok to release that information about dead people in public?
it just sounds like your life is too easy. sorry.
@strypey care to explain?
@strypey (my point: you advocate for archiving everything, incl. private emails => emails contain a lot of private stuff that affect future generations, too, one hundred years is a v small period of time => makes it too easy to go to an archive, find data about dead relatives of someone you don't like (like DNA test results); so i don't see how i'm strawmanning you. sorry if i misunderstood you.)
@leip4Ier this is a good example. If you read my posts carefully you'll find that I didn't advocate archiving private email, I just pointed out how useful that would be to future historians. Just as letters from hundreds of years ago are useful to present historians. You seem to be reading a lot of your own assumptions into my posts. Again, try just reading what's actually there.